The problem is that independent filmmakers are hit harder by piracy than the blockbusters. And piracy causes Hollywood studios to be less likely to back indie films, causing them to instead favor low hanging fruit, projects with mass appeal that will generate the most revenue regardless of piracy, instead of independent projects that may be more bold and creative, but would have more to lose from piracy. See here:
Regarding the article, out of those 60.000, how many would have gone to the movies to watch it? I watch a lot of indie films just because it's easy, while I wouldn't go out to a small crumpled theater downtown to see it, even if it was free. That's the MPAA math and it doesn't add up.
Yes, that would be true if movie torrents were "dubious", but the vast majority aren't. You don't have to be a genius to find a genuine copy of a movie, indie or blockbuster, on torrents. It's actually quite straightforward.
Though no one wants to talk about it, this is the real reason why Steam has succeeded in such a big way where services for other types of content haven't, and is one of the reasons why I don't think movie and music piracy can be reduced to the same degree Steam has cut into PC video game piracy.
Pirating and installing a video game can actually be quite difficult. You have to use keygens, cracks, and patches to remove the copy protection - executables can be difficult to use and may be deleted on accident by antivirus software for containing malware (because cracks and patches are used to do things seen in malware - modifying other executables, for example). Many people may not want to deal with that.
More importantly, you also have to manually torrent and install updates - a true pain in the ass when games these days are often released with many bugs intact, since updates can easily be issued over the internet. And equally important is that you often miss out on multiplayer features that require a genuine key.
You also have to choose the correct quality, or decide between filesize/quality. Check that audio is good. If you're watching with non-native english speakers, go hunting for a subtitle track that syncs with your chosen file... not straightforward at all.
For most people it's easier to download a .exe and click next/ok blindly than do all those steps. I believe the Steam model would fare quite well with the movie/music industry, though netflix or amazon instant might win.
This is a completely separate issue that can be easily solved with Adblock. Everyone I know uses it, even those who don't know much about tech.
I just searched for the most pirated movie of 2012, Project X, on Google. I typed in "project x torrent". The first link took me to a Pirate Bay page for a DVD rip, while the second link was for a HD version. You would have to be a real idiot not to know how to download from a page that clearly says "GET THIS TORRENT" in red letters. I cannot think of anyone I know who cannot do this, and there are plenty of people I know who have very little computer experience.
In fact, I find Netflix's UI quite a bit more confusing.
> You also have to choose the correct quality, or decide between filesize/quality.
Oh yes, it is so difficult to understand the difference between DVD rip and 720p Bluray rip. Come on, you deal with this same problem if you go to the store to buy a movie on disc! People are not that stupid.
> Check that audio is good.
This is 100% FUD. I have no other response. If you are downloading a DVD or Bluray rip, there is no reason to worry about audio quality.
> If you're watching with non-native english speakers, go hunting for a subtitle track that syncs with your chosen file... not straightforward at all.
Have you used a DVD or Bluray disc or Netflix lately? Is it easy to enable subtitles? Are they even included in all discs/videos?
> For most people it's easier to download a .exe and click next/ok blindly than do all those steps. I believe the Steam model would fare quite well with the movie/music industry, though netflix or amazon instant might win.
It's not a matter of whether it's easier, it's a matter of how much easier it is. It's a tradeoff between price and convenience. My point is that the tradeoff tilts in favor of the paid option for PC video gaming, but tilts in favor of piracy for movies and TV shows (for a la carte purchases).
I have no idea what flavor of Google you use, but piratebay is not even among the top 15 results for Project X: http://cl.ly/image/0R1K2z2V0O3z. Your search history is probably reflecting on your results.
Now look at this: http://cl.ly/image/1x302r3g383I. Tell me more about idiots.
Third, no, a lot a people have absolutely no clue about the difference between 720p/1080p. It's not about being stupid, they just don't care enough.
Fourth, there are plenty torrents around with crappy audio, either low volume, distorted or mono, specially for new releases. Your own experiences don't apply to everyone.
Finally, yes, I do use Netflix daily and subtitles are a menu click away, and available for every video. Same goes for DVD/BR, which I haven't watched in years. Clearly you don't watch subtitled movies, so what are you arguing for?
Enjoy your bubble.
This doesn't change the fact that the problem can be easily solved. Your girlfriend getting lost after 10 years of browsing is something that can be solved in 10 seconds. When I said that everyone I know uses it, my point wasn't that everyone in the world uses it, it was that it's not so difficult to use Adblock that people won't use it once they're told about it.
> I have no idea what flavor of Google you use, but piratebay is not even among the top 15 results for Project X: http://cl.ly/image/0R1K2z2V0O3z. Your search history is probably reflecting on your results.
I don't know why you're seeing those results, but not only did I search in an incognito window to avoid my search history biasing my results, personally I use private torrents almost exclusively, so my Google torrent search history is quite limited.
> Now look at this: http://cl.ly/image/1x302r3g383I. Tell me more about idiots.
I have never seen that site before, nor do I recommend it to anyone that I know. There are bad sites out on the internet - who would have guessed?
> Third, no, a lot a people have absolutely no clue about the difference between 720p/1080p. It's not about being stupid, they just don't care enough.
Well, that's good, because on Netflix, most content is not even available in 1080p, and even when it is, it's not accessible on many devices. Hell, I've seen tons of stuff that isn't even in HD.
And most people can't tell the difference in quality between 720p and 1080p anyway, so what difference does it make which one they download?
> Fourth, there are plenty torrents around with crappy audio, either low volume, distorted or mono, specially for new releases. Your own experiences don't apply to everyone.
Please point me to some examples. And I'm not talking about crappy cams. I would never suggest watching a cam over going to a theater, if the experience is important for you.
The only reason for audio issues with a DVD or Bluray rip would be improper encoding, and such a release would just be ignored.
> Finally, yes, I do use Netflix daily and subtitles are a menu click away, and available for every video.
No, they are not. That is blatantly incorrect. I just logged into Netflix and opened a random TV show. There were only subtitles available in English. They only had a 4:3 480p video option. Please explain how this is an optimal experience again?
And Netflix is not really a valid comparison in any case, since the available content is horribly limited.
It seems that pirates are increasingly looking to provide a better service, whereas publishers seem intent on bad practices that either directly hurt, or can be used to hurt, legitimate users. In fact, many people pirate today because they don't want DRM or required connectivity. (The next SimCity will suffer from this, but I expect pirates to not have to worry about it after a few weeks.) In the case of Assassin's Creed II pirates couple play fine, but legitimate players couldn't due to DDOS attacks on servers required to let you play even single player. And in a hilarious example, an Ubisoft developer was even found to use a hack by a release group in an official patch: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-remi...
Given the relatively equal ease of piracy versus purchase, I would give the edge to the fact that developers are insanely integrated into the game buying community at every level. They've been blogging for years, they talk on Twitter, they visit 4chan and talk games, they even visit piracy sites themselves. Gamers like developers, and want them to succeed.
But yes, I do think Steam even has a chance because it's as easy and (mostly) as useful as piracy. Ease and use are a large part of why Napster succeeded, and why Kazaa was so popular, but it's also the reason iTunes succeeds, though people associate it mostly with music. Google Play... I don't know many who even use it.
Now, UltraVoilet is a wonderful digital attempt by film studios, on paper, but they cut their nose off to spite their face by making pack-ins that come with DVDs/Blu-Rays only guaranteed to last a year. And you can't buy from the studios, but instead a few other services that the common consumer has never heard of. Film companies really are still stuck in the past. Others have learned how to make their mediums work on the Internet, and these people have ignored the lessons.
/edit: Been looking into UV more. It's actually an even better idea than I first thought. It seems that it's the bigger stores (Google, Apple, Amazon) that don't want to go along with it. That's a shame for us as customers.
On the other hand, obtaining that game through piracy, I have the choice of various releases, mod packs, and most games have been cracked already; the crack comes packaged when you get the game, or already applied.
The reason I buy games through Steam is because I don't want to pirate first of all, but besides that, it's because Steam keeps a library of my games, I have one login to access all of my games, I can download them again whenever I want to, they patch as needed, and I never have to think about it. When games are released for PC, they typically get released on Steam at the same time.
When I want to watch a movie, I have an Apple TV. When a movie is released, it's typically first released to theatres, then it's released on video, then sometime later it's released on iTunes. When I buy a movie on iTunes, I have to choose whether I want to watch it once or keep it forever, but I don't know if I'll like it until I've watched it. They don't give me any option to buy at a discounted rate if I've rented it before though. So my catalog is small. Many movies don't even get released on to iTunes. Through iTunes, I can only authorize a few devices, since I have an iPad, iPhone, AppleTV, and a few computers, those licences get eaten up quickly, so my wife and I can't both be authorized to the same iTunes account. This means that some of our devices are also not paired correctly, which leads to weird issues when we want to sync our devices with our libraries, because we need to keep track of which item is on which device, where it's been paired to, or else we risk having some files lost in the sync process. For a while, shows purchased initially on my AppleTV weren't available for download on my computer. Now they might be, but it's nearly impossible for me to trigger those downloads. However, shows that were downloaded to my computer could be accessed by my AppleTV to stream. Et cetera.
In the end, Steam is cool because I trust it. I trust that when I log into my steam account, I can download every game that I've ever purchased through steam. I stop having to worry about where my install files were stored, or where I put that disc. I have repurchased games in Steam just for that reason.
On the other hand, what do you use to watch movies and television shows a la carte? My own choice is iTunes. I don't trust iTunes to let me redownload all of my movies. There's no easy way to go into iTunes and see your purchases that haven't been downloaded. I'm afraid that if I arrange my syncing incorrectly I might lose my purchased content and be unable to download it again. I can't easily manage my own iTunes library because it makes it intentionally difficult to transfer a purchased item from one device to another. I would feel safer pirating because then at least I can keep a backup of all of my items stored in an understandable fashion, and never be afraid that they won't be readable because of some DRM issue.
If someone were to make a Steam for TV program, that would be incredible. I imagine a steam-like interface with Television shows in a list on the left side, an arrow that lets you expand and see seasons and episodes. Downloaded shows are Yellow, undownloaded shows are grey, unpurchased shows and seasons are dark grey. A dropdown on the top lets you group by genre. Horror, comedy, drama, whatever. Selecting a show or movie gives a synopsis in the right pane, and a list of "you may also like". The director and cast are hyperlinks, clicking them shows other shows that they have starred in or directed, as well as imdb-like info.
And you could even do other things, like invite friends to watch a show with you over the internet. You would have to watch the show at the same time as them, so you couldn't just act as a broadcaster, but you could have a chat window and yak about the movie with them as you watch it. If it was a TV show or something, maybe they would enjoy it, and maybe they don't want to wait for you to want to watch it, so they can buy it themselves. If they don't, oh well, it's no different than if they were sitting in your living room.
If someone were to make something like that, I would spend a hell of a lot more money on television than I currently do. Instead, all I have is shitty iTunes.
Yes, it's also difficult to manually install legally purchased games. Another reason Steam has done so well.
> If someone were to make a Steam for TV program, that would be incredible.
It's not the interface that's hard, it's getting the content deals. Steve Jobs talked about it during an interview at a conference around a year before he died. They've got the engineering talent to make it happen. What they don't have is deals with the content providers. He called it a "go-to-market problem".
The reason Apple was able to force the record labels onto iTunes is because they were getting decimated by music piracy. Particularly after portable media players (PMP) became popular, it was so easy to pirate tons of music and put it on your PMP. Album sales were plummeting and Apple promised to be their savior. The labels didn't realize at that time the kind of control they were ceding to Apple. A decade later, the labels are making a lot less money than they did back in the late 90s.
The movie and TV industry isn't nearly as desperate. Not only do people continue to go to the theaters for the bigscreen experience, it's still relatively difficult for the average person to watch pirated content on their TV, because only an HTPC really gives you full access, and those have poor UIs. Also, live content has a special value (mainly news and sports, but also some other shows nowadays, because of real-time or post-show discussion online). Another factor is that movies and TV shows are much larger files than MP3s, and American broadband speeds have largely stagnated in recent years. It takes a lot longer to pirate an HD movie in 2012 than it did to pirate an MP3 in 2001.
Finally, the movie/TV industry has seen what easy digital distribution done to the music industry. It's destroyed profits for the bigwigs at the labels. Will the movie/TV studios follow through given that? Doubtful.
And I'm not quite sure what the ethical thing to do for foreign movies is: buy product only when it's available in my region? Or try to buy in my region but buy it from another region if it's not going to be in my region ever?
The industry seems to say that I must never pirate; must never buy second hand goods; must never import from another region. (But it's only relatively that they've said that format-shifting (ripping CD to mp3 player for example) is okay.
 Now I don't pirate anything if there's not a realistic chance of me being able to buy it. This means I'm missing out on a lot of product, but I get to feel smug.
At 5 Euro, for me the price is an instant purchase, no thinking necessary. Not so at €12 or more.
I hope it's not the case, but I wonder whether there are so few people that pay for movies at any price that the studios have concluded it's just not worth it, and so keep the higher prices. Or, alternatively, there are enough people that do buy at the €12 point, again not making it worth the time to lower the price.
In conclusion: trying to work out pricing points hurts my head.
I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop. Every time I do, I think "do I really want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me, SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for me.
And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can.
(For reference, I use a Roku)
As perhaps a reason why they'd do this. Some of us are on bandwidth caps. Watching/downloading too many HD movies can put you over your monthly cap pretty easily.
I actually like that they give the user the choice.
The true answer lies in price discrimination.
Well twice the resolution in 2 axis is 4 times the pixels, which means higher costs. I think it's reasonable.
> The true answer lies in price discrimination.
Actually its a mix of both, price discrimination and costs. No need to be so negative.
It also feels... scammy. "For just 25% more, you can have the version that doesn't suck!" That kind of attitude does not make me want to do business with them. Of course, this is just as much the fault of the last five years of TV marketing talking about how awful anything SD is, when in practicality it's more than adequate unless you have an absurdly large screen.
Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing else?
Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...
This might sound like "white people problems" but it's annoying and hurts the experience.
So really your issue is with UI, maybe they could allow you to change which price point is shown to you? Because reducing down to a single price point, sure it might be good in that they're playing less mind games, but if you end up paying higher prices it surely isn't a good change.
But when you click into detail, it's actually: rent in SD for $2.99, rent in HD for $4.99, buy for $19.99.
I don't really care that much, but I can see how it comes off as scammy. If it wasn't Amazon doing it, I think a lot more people would have a problem with it.
more like "these shoes are overpriced so I'm going get the pattern and start making my own copies of them and share them with my friends". you aren't affecting someone else's possession of something when you pirate it, you are just not paying the owner for a copy.
the argument is around how many of those pirated copies actually represent lost sales (and most people who've looked at the issue and aren't in some way employed by the entertainment industry think it's probably a slim percentage)
as for supporting independents, while what you're saying is probably true for music, independent TV and film as a whole just haven't reached anywhere near the quality. the instances in those mediums of high quality content produced independently are still very much the exception. in music, independents have been producing as good or better than the major labels for a long time.
download illegaly === easy with next to 0 consequence , that's why people do it.
When you buy a soft or a song online you dont buy an object but a license that gives you the right to listen it, if you obtain the song or the soft illegally you are violating that license , and you dont get to chose what the terms of the license is. If you dont agree with the license dont download period.
Do i download things illegaly , yes, but i dont try to justify my behavior with stupid arguments to free my mind from any guilt like you do. It's illegal , be a grown up , at least acknowlegde that fact.
So what if it is illegal? It is the moral responsibility of a citizen to disobey laws they believe are unjust. If I have strong convictions that piracy laws are unjust, not only do I not care if they are illegal, but I will actively encourage other people to ignore these laws. This is just one way of achieving the goal of change.
Your other suggestion is completely right though, we should also be willing to support the artists whose values align with our own.
Oh, come on. We're not talking about summary execution of Muslims or cutting off a child's hand for stealing bread; we're talking about twenty bucks for a movie.
If it is illegal it is illegal , end of discussion , want to change the law ? vote for a change.
FYI illegal =/= immoral , the law has nothing to do with morality. The law is the law , if you want to live in a country driven by morality move to Saudi Arabia and watch the consequences of your stupid statement.
The other thing that bugs the shit out of me is they don't have an upgrade path from SD to HD or whatever's next.
That and for some reason the apple tv uses an independent wish list for some crazy reason. They make it easier to buy movies, then they make it stupid to find the movies you want.
It's just madness. I want to think about what film I want to watch, not about whether I'll spend the money.
The ironic thing is that my monthly spend would be somewhere around 40 or 50 Euro if the prices were at stupid-la-la-thinking-land levels. Somewhat of an improvement from the big, fat €0 as at present.
A certain amount of this is expected. The high fixed and low marginal costs of their product makes some price discrimination natural. The problem, as I see it, is that they're trying to hold onto the existing forms of discrimination rather than thinking through what makes sense from first principles now that digital distribution is an important part of the picture.
By your argument, embezzlement and tax fraud and retail theft don't exist either. Just because a loss isn't fatal to an industry doesn't mean it has no effect.
Both are not one company. They are multiple companies working together. They didn't go out of business because they mostly changed with the new trends (Songs can now be purchased for 99 cents and streamed, etc).
"The MPAA is just greedy"
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. The MPAA may be greedy, but the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement).
"they are the ones stealing from artists:"
Sigh. I'm tired of hearing this. Artists have many ways to promote their stuff online. They don't have to sign a contract, but they choose to.
It's never been easy to make money as an artist...and piracy makes it even more difficult (especially when you don't have the backing of a major label).
I guess they don't deserve to make a living...and instead entertain you to your exact specifications.
I don't know. If you want to separate 'greed' and 'entitlement' I would say that someone pirating a dozen movies is certainly full of entitlement but I wouldn't say they're any greedier than the person that buys the same dozen movies.
Which is exactly the point: why should we pay them any credence when they attack the Internet or claim that new technologies will kill them, when all they need is an iota of creativity to figure out how to remain profitable as the realities of the market change?
"The MPAA may be greedy, but the hordes of people taking music and giving excuse after excuse as to why they shouldn't have to pay for it is pure greed (and entitlement)."
It is not really on the same level. On the one hand, you have people (mostly teenagers and college students) who want immediate gratification and do not have terribly much money available, who are getting their entertainment in the most convenient form available to them. On the other hand, you have people who could have a comfortable retirement at any time, who are engaged in a coordinated and well-planned strategy to extract that maximum amount of money possible from every conceivable source of revenue, who routinely bribe politicians into passing laws that promote their business interests, and who have been working for many years to destroy the most important communications tool ever developed in order to avoid having to change an immensely profitable business.
Really though, the greed argument is silly. We expect corporations to be greedy; the purpose of a business is to make money, not to be nice, and we accepted that fact long ago. Unfortunately, there is this weird expectation that individual computer users are supposed to be thinking about copyrights before they perform one of the most basic computing tasks possible. Copyright was never designed to be a form of property, and there is no way for a system that requires a judge to decide what is or is not a violation to be applied en masse. If we want to continue to use copyrights to ensure the availability of and to promote the progress of art (let's not kid ourselves about science -- scientists do not need copyrights to ensure their access to published work in this day and age, and copyrights now serve only to restrict access to scientific research), we need to reform the entire system: copyright violations need to be treated like parking violations, with a small but still annoying fine that must be paid whenever a person is caught. Even the MPAA realizes that the lengthy court proceedings needed to decide copyright cases are just not appropriate for the case of downloading; why do you think they spend so much money and effort on DRM?
"They don't have to sign a contract, but they choose to."
The problem is not just bad contracts; the movie industry is notorious for its deceptive accounting tactics, which are designed to deprive artists who signed seemingly good contracts of the money they are entitled to. We are talking about a deliberate effort to avoid paying actors, scriptwriters, and others involved in the creative part of creating a movie their share of the profits by claiming there was no profit, that the movie was actually a loss, by siphoning enormous amounts of money into shell companies for nebulous services. Sure, the big-name actors are not the ones who suffer, because their agents know better than to sign a contract that promises a share in the profit; they get contracts that promise a share of the revenue.
The MPAA cannot be taken seriously when they claim that downloaders are the reason up-and-coming artists and actors are making so little money while they continue to engage in that sort of accounting practice. It is difficult to make the case that every downloader would have paid full price had they not downloaded the movie; it is not difficult to show that artists lose money when movie studios lie about the profitability of a movie. Hollywood accounting predates downloading and even home taping by many years; artists suffered as much before as they do now, and they are suffering for the same reasons.
Don't forget the support costs as well; they end up with double the number of people to support, but for the same amount of money.
However, if you have a pretty unknown franchise/game with maybe a potential of 1 million users at $60, then lowering the price to $30 may very well double or triple your market.
Regional pricing could also be used, if the company is greedy. People living in low-income countries aren't really going to be able to afford $60 for a game, but it were $10 for them, they might.
Why at home?
1) Bathroom breaks
2) People's heads aren't in the way
3) No blurry screens
4) No crappy audio
5) Snacks I want
6) Quieter. No kids crying or cell phones, etc.
I am willing to spend the same price. I hate going to movie theater these days... I just wait for the DVD (or Bluray).
Disney have been involved in a number of weird IP protection stuff. They developed a cassette that could only be rewound with a special device. It was supposed to be a "watch once per payment" mechanism. They also developed a DVD that would oxidise slowly once it got contact with air. They'd burn a movie, seal it in a special case, and ship it to people. Once you opened the packet you'd get about 2 days to watch the movie.
EDIT: Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
I would pay $30 USD to watch a movie from my couch that is currently in the theaters. Maybe a couple friends are over (another couple) but that total is 4... not 40.
I would bet major releases would see people throwing parties at their homes. But then again, is it a problem? Maybe raise the price a bit?
Obviously it's not quite that simple, as some of those 3 friends might not have gone to the cinema - but maybe they all would have.
Of course they can enforce this with digital books, but they shouldn't be able to, and people should protest against it.
Is there even a point to watching new movies? Hollywood is not all that creative these days. The same plot plays out over and over; they are remaking movies that are less than a decade old; actions scenes are formulaic, sex scenes are formulaic, and the way in which scenes are composed is formulaic. When movie studios run out of ideas about what to copy, they just create formulaic sequels to movies that were OK the first time around (Fast Five? Really?).
Hollywood's problem is quality. They spend enormous amounts of money on improved special effects, when special effects are not really what needed to be improved. If you can predict how the story ends (or count the number of possible endings on your fingers), the movie probably isn't worth paying for.
How on earth can you say this? New tellings of old stories are a — the — foundational element of human storytelling since the dawn of time.
Can you give an example of a story whose ending can't be reduced to a few possibilities given the beginning? That doesn't make people shout "What a tweest!"?
But seriously, I see what you're saying: Pulp Fiction has a multilayered narrative that is complex and consistently surprising. And I think it's a good one to highlight my point that it's the journey, not the destination, and that "can you predict the ending" is a silly classifier.
These are the most important and frustrating points for me. What's the point of paying to use a professional set-up if it all goes to hell in a handbasket the minute the switch is flipped?
I've sat in a cinema where the volume was so low, the audience could hardly hear a thing. A few shouts of "Turn it up!" went unanswered, and there wasn't an usher anywhere in sight.
At the end, no-one went and complained. I'm just as guilty (my excuse: crushing social anxiety when it comes to complaining in a foreign language) for not doing so, but maybe this is why: not enough people complain/stop going/ask for refunds, and so the circus continues.
I've bailed on films where half the screen was out of focus or, inexplicably, they were using the wrong lens and everything was crunched. Sometimes all you have to do is point it out and they'll fix it, other times they'll refund it no questions asked.
If they don't feel it financially, they won't care to fix it.
Sometimes all you have to do is point it out and they'll fix it
As I hinted, I would have done so at the time if I'd had the language skills to confidently say what was wrong (and understand their suggested resollution). (and if I'd been able to find an usher as well, for that matter).
I see a new movie at least once/month and have had little issues with the audio or the screen.
Nope - I go to many theatres here in Poland. Now I'm fine with complaining where necessary, but at the time my Polish wasn't up to it. The point I wanted - and failed - to illustrate was more that no-one complains, and so the cinemas get away with it far more often than they should.
Along with digital projection (not much work to do), that means there might be one or two operators for a dozen screens. The projection room also has noise blocking, so no one is listening or looking when you shout. It's more likely that the ticket/security crew outside the door listens and calls the operators, but you have to shout really loud :)
I've sat in a cinema where the volume was so high the audio setup was saturating unless that was a quiet, whispery scene. The film was really good, so we stayed. Although silent, I took action: it was the last time I went to a theatre since three years.
1. Massive concentration of power (in this case, the entertainment industry. I think 5 corporations control 96% of commercial media  - TV/Movie/etc.)
2. Artificially powerful threat (in this case "pirates") always JUST about to destroy/harm/impact/irreparably damage #1.
3. #1 is justified in fighting a war on #2 -- physically, legally, financially, whatever.
4. For all intents and purposes, the stronger #2 (the "threat") seems, the easier job #1 has justifying ANY recourse. If #2 (the threat) isn't that strong on its own, I would imagine it be in the best interest of #1 to make it appear so and even help bolster it if necessary.
5. There is so much rhetoric, confusion, mix-facts, misreporting and fuzzy data being seeded and organically produced on the topic of "#1 vs #2" that it is impossible to cleanly and clearly make heads or tales of any of it -- well #1 has a point, but so does #2, but #2 is doing something illegal, but #1 is also doing illegal things... ad infinitum.
6. #1 continues to pump energy and complexity into #5 which engages, exhausts and overwhelms us until it becomes noise and we learn to tune it out. Think of a person standing in the middle of New York as opposed to the middle of a corn field -- our brains are wired to tune out repetitive audio and visual queues -- we are tuned to spot differentiation. #1 doesn't have to _hide_ anything per se, it just needs to amplify it and muddy the noise enough that it becomes repetitive.
There are examples of this same strategy played out over and over and over again all over the world in all nooks and crannies of our lives - oil, pharmaceuticals, electronics, governments, publishers, music, farming/food, etc.
I would expect this strategy is as old as mud, probably starting with its roots in false-flag campaigns in the annals of history, but it works and it has been refined and continues to work -- just like the format for romantic comedy movies continues to work even though we've seen it 100,000 times and the format for super-hero movies works.
We are incredibly manipulatable. Our convictions are disturbingly fragile and the worst part of it is that most of us are lead to believe exactly the opposite and completely reject the possibility that they are.
I think _that_ is what makes us so susceptible to this type engineering and why it is so successful.
I mean, really: if you're going to come so close to having a clue, why not just take that one extra step? Why does it always have to come back to declaring indifference a sin foist upon people by the Great Satan of the week?
I don't think you can distill the world down into "Good vs Evil" -- it would be easier if you could.
What I do think is that power has an innate tendency to protect itself and concentrate and the mechanisms by which it does this _anywhere_ are all strikingly similar -- i.e. if you put them all in a pot and boiled off the water, you would maybe 3-5 different ways for doing this.
I'm not even sure if I'm serious or sarcastic on this one.
Well, me too. Can the government get behind that please?
As the article says, especially when taking inflation into account: The End Is Near for Hollywood. All due to piracy.
Top 10 grossing was probably a bad pick, but I don't know a better way to measure the general output of movie studios without considering every movie released, even those shown in like 2 theaters worldwide.
Teenagers are a smaller portion of the moviegoing market than they were 10 years ago. Smartphones, videogames, and various other distractions have cut down on their numbers. [See Variety, L.A. Times, and any other entertainment-focused news source.]
And you'd have to assume any time someone goes to the theaters they pick the best movie for their tastes, not just the "safe bet" on a sequel or the one they've seen the most advertising for.
That has always been true of movies. But as it turns out, many people's tastes align with IP they are already familiar with: they know the characters, the plots, etc., and so it is easier for them to judge whether the movie in question will satisfy their interests.